| « | November 2007 | » | ||||
 |
||||||
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | |
To answer the question, see question 15 on pg 716 of your textbook, then respond to the question below.
How would the actual position of the fish differ from the apparent location of the fish in the diagram. Explain your answer.
Monday, 19 November 2007 - 6:22 PM EST
Name: "Dave"The fish would bee slightly below where the person sees it because of the difference of media that the person looks though, causing the light to refract.
Monday, 19 November 2007 - 7:54 PM EST
Name: "Matthew Correnti"
Hey,
The actual position of the fish would be lower in the tank than one would percieve. This is because if one traces the ray of light back to its source, when the ray emerges from the tank its angle becomes steepens. Thus the true position of the fish is a certain distance lower in the tank due to the angle change of the ray of light.
Thats all for now.
Monday, 19 November 2007 - 9:54 PM EST
Name: "D. Wilson"The actual position of the fish would be a bit lower than perceived by the observer. This is basically for same reason that Matthew said. That is, if you were to trace the ray of light that is going into the eye back into the tank without taking the refraction into account, you would find the depth where the fish is actually located.
Monday, 19 November 2007 - 10:11 PM EST
Name: "Meghan"Like everyone else that already posted, I agree in that the actual position of the fish would be slightly lower than seen. This is due to the differing index of refraction between the water and the air, making the ray of light slightly skewed.
Monday, 19 November 2007 - 10:25 PM EST
Name: "Chris Addis"
I think that the position of the fish would be lower in the tank then you would think. The reasoning is that since the observer has to look through three different mediums, which will intern cause the angle to change. The observer has to see through the air, glass of the aquarium and the water in the aquarium. Since each of these materials have different indices of refraction. This will cause us to misjudge the distance of fish because the angle has changed.
Monday, 19 November 2007 - 10:39 PM EST
Name: "Kevin Crowe"The fish would appear to be lower in the tank. I agree with both dave and matt in the fact that the reason the fish would appear to be lower because of the fact that the angle change in the ray of light.
Monday, 19 November 2007 - 11:35 PM EST
Name: "Jonathan Hellmer"
The approximate positon of the actual fish would be lower as mostly everyone has said. This is because the one ray of light that emerges from the tank from the fish, if traced back, at the point where the ray will emerge from the tank the angle gets steeper. Subsequently, the actual or approximate position of the fish in the water tank would be some distance lower than what the eye percieves it to be because refraction changes the angle fo the ray of light.
Monday, 19 November 2007 - 11:57 PM EST
Name: "MaryBeth Kellett"I agree with everyone else. The fish would be lower than it appears because the ray is entering a medium in which the speed is less, therefore leaning towards the normal. If you look at the figure 23-18 on page 697 inverted you can see the path of the ray in this instance and how it causes the ray to be refracted higher than it actually is.
Tuesday, 20 November 2007 - 9:43 AM EST
Name: "Joe Mahon"The actual position would be slighly lower then the position percieved. This is the case because the ray gets refacted as it goes through the water.
